Thursday, January 21, 2010
Call Your Reps.
The time is now. Last chance - only chance. Call your representatives and tell them you want them to vote for the Senate's bill. Yeah, it's not perfect, but it's what we've got. Convince them that it's what their constituents want - they already know it's what's best for America and the only logical possibility for Democrats to hold onto any political power in the next decade. Please, call them, e-mail them, beg them.
Crying Uncle
The Coakley loss is upsetting, but far worse is the Democrats' collective reaction to it. Apparently we've decided that the proper reaction to a campaign of nothing but obstructionism by the Republicans is to cave to it and let them have their way. Not passing health care reform is going to be a disaster for the country and for the Democratic Party, but that appears to be the plan, from what I can tell. The idea of passing it incrementally is ridiculously unrealistic.
What really bothers me about this is the incentive structure American voters and Democrats have created for minority parties into the future. The moral of this story is "just do everything you can to stall the legislature into a stalemate, and you will be rewarded." Looks just great for our future.
What really bothers me about this is the incentive structure American voters and Democrats have created for minority parties into the future. The moral of this story is "just do everything you can to stall the legislature into a stalemate, and you will be rewarded." Looks just great for our future.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Health Care Passes the House!
Which is a good thing, it really is. The Stupak Amendment, however, is making it difficult for me to cheer. As near as I can tell, this amendment will make it basically impossible for non-affluent women to have elective abortions. Then again, I don't know exactly what the case is now - i.e. to what extent poorer women have any access. I know there are regions of the country where there is basically no access to abortions. I find it upsetting that the Democrats chose to make this pass by selling out women. I find it upsetting that the House has voted to take away the right, not only of women to choose, but of insurance companies to provide that right. This should be about adding coverage and improving accessibility to health care, not taking it away. Maybe it will get stripped out. Here's hoping.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Convince me
I need convincing. With Deeds trailing massively in the polls and Deeds apparently coming out against the public option, I'm getting very tempted to vote for a write-in, like Brian Moran. I know this shouldn't come as a surprise - I remember being appalled at a speech Creigh gave in Charlottesville a few years ago where he talked about the need for Virginia Dems to run to the right in order to win, but I am really not sure I can bring myself to vote for a losing candidate who has run a terrible campaign and with whom I agree on next to nothing. Yeah, he's got a better transportation plan than McDonnell, but... Ugh.
UPDATE: He says he's not opposed, but he would consider taking VA out of the public option. Good grief. Who the hell is running his campaign? And what the hell is Deeds thinking? ARGH
UPDATE: He says he's not opposed, but he would consider taking VA out of the public option. Good grief. Who the hell is running his campaign? And what the hell is Deeds thinking? ARGH
Friday, October 9, 2009
Nobel Peace Prize!
Congratulations to President Obama on receiving the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize! This is a great honor, and his remarks on the occasion show that he understands that.
People keep saying that it's incredibly premature and that he hasn't accomplished anything yet and that he doesn't deserve it. While I admit to being shocked at the news when a friend texted it to me this morning, the more I think about it, the more sense it makes.
Obama came to the Presidency after Bush's administration had done severe damage to the reputation of our country in the world. There isn't any denying that had happened, there is only a debate as to how much people care what the rest of the world thinks of us. However, in a few short months, Obama has managed to turn much of our foreign policy around. Yes, Afghanistan is still a mess, and yes, we haven't finished pulling out of Iraq yet.
However, we have presented an entirely new face to the world in terms of diplomatic engagement. Obama has made it clear that he is willing to pursue diplomatic means to achieve international cooperation and nuclear disarmament, and he has taken many affirmative steps towards that end - not least of which is engaging Iran and getting the UN to agree to pursue worldwide nuclear disarmament. So yes, there is much work to be done, but completely turning around the foreign policy of the world's most powerful nation, from hawkish to cooperative, in the first few months of his presidency - yeah, I think that's a pretty big accomplishment.
People keep saying that it's incredibly premature and that he hasn't accomplished anything yet and that he doesn't deserve it. While I admit to being shocked at the news when a friend texted it to me this morning, the more I think about it, the more sense it makes.
Obama came to the Presidency after Bush's administration had done severe damage to the reputation of our country in the world. There isn't any denying that had happened, there is only a debate as to how much people care what the rest of the world thinks of us. However, in a few short months, Obama has managed to turn much of our foreign policy around. Yes, Afghanistan is still a mess, and yes, we haven't finished pulling out of Iraq yet.
However, we have presented an entirely new face to the world in terms of diplomatic engagement. Obama has made it clear that he is willing to pursue diplomatic means to achieve international cooperation and nuclear disarmament, and he has taken many affirmative steps towards that end - not least of which is engaging Iran and getting the UN to agree to pursue worldwide nuclear disarmament. So yes, there is much work to be done, but completely turning around the foreign policy of the world's most powerful nation, from hawkish to cooperative, in the first few months of his presidency - yeah, I think that's a pretty big accomplishment.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Party Wisdom
Two things regarding my current approach to party politics have been going through my mind lately. The first is whether I should continue to vote for non-progressive Democrats, particularly in federal elections. The second is a stranger thought to me - whether to encourage those Republicans who speak out against the far-right and untruthful tactics that the current Republican leadership has pursued of late.
I know that, living in Virginia especially, I am not always going to end up with Democrats that are not far too centrist for my taste running in the general elections. This has happened this year with Creigh Deeds and last year with Mark Warner. However, I have generally been of the opinion that you vote for the better of the two real candidates, or you're just throwing your vote away. The debate over health care reform has started to change the way I see this, however. After all, what is the point of voting for someone who still will not do the things you wish he or she would do? What is the point of having a majority, even a filibuster-proof one, if you still cannot get something like a public option, which has widespread public support and a majority of both Representatives and Senators willing to vote for it, passed into law?
I recognize that there are no viable third parties, and that most third-party candidates seem to be somewhat nutty, at best. However, how can I, in good conscience, vote for people who are so beholden to corporate special interests that they are unwilling to do what is clearly in the best interest of the country? The only arguments I've seen against voting for a public option are that it does not have the votes to pass or that it would drive private insurers out of business. The first is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and the second has both the difficulty of not necessarily being a bad thing and having been disputed by every reputable study that's been done. If the majorities the Democrats currently possess in Congress combined with possession of the White House aren't enough to get this done, then I think it might be time to accept that even the Democratic Party is not willing or able to accomplish progressive goals. I think it might be time to give my vote to alternative candidates, or simply not to vote at all. I'm really not sure what other solution there is. And I don't think I can vote for candidates that are more worried about the good of their political futures in the hands of special interests than they are about the good of the American people they serve.
Another major problem we've all become increasingly aware of is the scorched earth tactics to which the Republican leadership has stooped. Birtherism has reared its ugly head among many members of Congress, and we constantly hear the likes of Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin ranting about death panels and other similar nonsense. Meanwhile, the powers that be back up this nonsense rather than calling it out and trying to encourage a return to civil and honest debate - which is necessary in order for our government to perform properly.
However, occasionally Republicans do step up and call for an end to the nonsense, like Rubio, who is running for the Republican nomination for Senate in Florida, or Senator Lindsey Graham, on occasion. In cases like Rubio's, where he is the longshot against Crist for the nomination, it occurs to me to support him, even financially, because of how much better it would be for the country if the debate were between people unwilling to stoop to lies, innuendo and name-calling for political gain. Surely, though, that would be going too far?
I know that, living in Virginia especially, I am not always going to end up with Democrats that are not far too centrist for my taste running in the general elections. This has happened this year with Creigh Deeds and last year with Mark Warner. However, I have generally been of the opinion that you vote for the better of the two real candidates, or you're just throwing your vote away. The debate over health care reform has started to change the way I see this, however. After all, what is the point of voting for someone who still will not do the things you wish he or she would do? What is the point of having a majority, even a filibuster-proof one, if you still cannot get something like a public option, which has widespread public support and a majority of both Representatives and Senators willing to vote for it, passed into law?
I recognize that there are no viable third parties, and that most third-party candidates seem to be somewhat nutty, at best. However, how can I, in good conscience, vote for people who are so beholden to corporate special interests that they are unwilling to do what is clearly in the best interest of the country? The only arguments I've seen against voting for a public option are that it does not have the votes to pass or that it would drive private insurers out of business. The first is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and the second has both the difficulty of not necessarily being a bad thing and having been disputed by every reputable study that's been done. If the majorities the Democrats currently possess in Congress combined with possession of the White House aren't enough to get this done, then I think it might be time to accept that even the Democratic Party is not willing or able to accomplish progressive goals. I think it might be time to give my vote to alternative candidates, or simply not to vote at all. I'm really not sure what other solution there is. And I don't think I can vote for candidates that are more worried about the good of their political futures in the hands of special interests than they are about the good of the American people they serve.
Another major problem we've all become increasingly aware of is the scorched earth tactics to which the Republican leadership has stooped. Birtherism has reared its ugly head among many members of Congress, and we constantly hear the likes of Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin ranting about death panels and other similar nonsense. Meanwhile, the powers that be back up this nonsense rather than calling it out and trying to encourage a return to civil and honest debate - which is necessary in order for our government to perform properly.
However, occasionally Republicans do step up and call for an end to the nonsense, like Rubio, who is running for the Republican nomination for Senate in Florida, or Senator Lindsey Graham, on occasion. In cases like Rubio's, where he is the longshot against Crist for the nomination, it occurs to me to support him, even financially, because of how much better it would be for the country if the debate were between people unwilling to stoop to lies, innuendo and name-calling for political gain. Surely, though, that would be going too far?
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Equality
I've been feeling especially feminist the last couple days. It started with this commentary on CNN, where the writer talks about Nancy Pelosi as though she's some sort of kindergarten teacher, instead of the Speaker of the House. Honestly, can you imagine any journalist ever writing anything about a male authority figure wanting to give someone a time-out?
Then, I saw this from HuffPo about how there are eight states and DC where insurance companies are allowed to consider being a victim of domestic violence to be a pre-existing condition, and therefore refuse coverage. Wow, way to look out for those who can't help themselves. Way to make it yet harder for these victims of abuse to seek the help and treatment they need.
Finally, I saw the story about how female congresspeople are more effective than male ones. Of course, we still only make up a ridiculous minority of the Senate and the House. At least here's an argument that may help us increase that percentage.
It's not that we haven't come a long way. Of course we have. And of course I am grateful that we have - grateful for my opportunities to go to a great law school and have a great job. But we still have one hell of a long way to go.
Then, I saw this from HuffPo about how there are eight states and DC where insurance companies are allowed to consider being a victim of domestic violence to be a pre-existing condition, and therefore refuse coverage. Wow, way to look out for those who can't help themselves. Way to make it yet harder for these victims of abuse to seek the help and treatment they need.
Finally, I saw the story about how female congresspeople are more effective than male ones. Of course, we still only make up a ridiculous minority of the Senate and the House. At least here's an argument that may help us increase that percentage.
It's not that we haven't come a long way. Of course we have. And of course I am grateful that we have - grateful for my opportunities to go to a great law school and have a great job. But we still have one hell of a long way to go.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Voting Against a Bill Without a Public Option
Right now, there are about 60 Progressive members of the House who have signed a pledge to vote against a bill without a robust public option. There is some controversy on the left as to whether this is such a good plan or not. I support these Representatives strongly, although I understand some reasons why people who do support a public option might think this is a bad idea or even silliness.
First, I think the arguments against are basically the same old idea that you should take what you can get, and maybe we just can't get a public option. People don't want health insurance/care reform to die entirely just because this one aspect of it isn't there. To an extent, I agree with this. I would rather we get some of it done than none of it.
However, I think this is a watershed moment for both the future of health care and the future of Progressive politics in America, and I think that if House Progressives roll over on this, they will be unlikely to ever get the White House or anyone else to listen in the future. Right now, it seems that the White House and the rest of the Dem leadership has been willing to roll over on basically every piece of craziness coming from the right, such as death panels and this nonsensical argument about coverage of illegal immigrants. However, everything the left wants seems to be consistently watered down or abandoned entirely. It seems to me that this is because the Dem leadership knows that the right and the right-leaning Dems will really, truly, actually vote against a bill if they don't get what they want, and the White House then has to cave because they assume that Progressives will still vote for the bill anyway. It's like a game of chicken, only so far, the Progressives have always caved. I know, because I vote for people like Senator Mark Warner because the alternative is a disaster like Gilmore. And I'm about to vote for Creigh Deeds because the alternative is Bob McDonnell (who apparently thinks I need to go find a man who can support me because women in the workplace is detrimental to families).
Not this time. Progressives need to finally stand up and say "no more." We need to prove to the rest of the political world that we are here, we're not going away, and we are powerful. Yes, I'd rather have some of it than nothing at all, but if we show we are willing to walk away from the table, then it becomes politically hard NOT to include the public option, rather than only being politically hard TO include it. Furthermore, it will guarantee the Progressives a seat at the table in the future, and probably grow the movement significantly once people see we can actually get things done. Obama supports the, 58% of Americans support the public option, and we are very close to having enough votes (yes, even in the Senate!) to get it done.
Thank you to the brave, principled Congresspeople who have taken this pledge. Please, for all our sakes, stick to it!
First, I think the arguments against are basically the same old idea that you should take what you can get, and maybe we just can't get a public option. People don't want health insurance/care reform to die entirely just because this one aspect of it isn't there. To an extent, I agree with this. I would rather we get some of it done than none of it.
However, I think this is a watershed moment for both the future of health care and the future of Progressive politics in America, and I think that if House Progressives roll over on this, they will be unlikely to ever get the White House or anyone else to listen in the future. Right now, it seems that the White House and the rest of the Dem leadership has been willing to roll over on basically every piece of craziness coming from the right, such as death panels and this nonsensical argument about coverage of illegal immigrants. However, everything the left wants seems to be consistently watered down or abandoned entirely. It seems to me that this is because the Dem leadership knows that the right and the right-leaning Dems will really, truly, actually vote against a bill if they don't get what they want, and the White House then has to cave because they assume that Progressives will still vote for the bill anyway. It's like a game of chicken, only so far, the Progressives have always caved. I know, because I vote for people like Senator Mark Warner because the alternative is a disaster like Gilmore. And I'm about to vote for Creigh Deeds because the alternative is Bob McDonnell (who apparently thinks I need to go find a man who can support me because women in the workplace is detrimental to families).
Not this time. Progressives need to finally stand up and say "no more." We need to prove to the rest of the political world that we are here, we're not going away, and we are powerful. Yes, I'd rather have some of it than nothing at all, but if we show we are willing to walk away from the table, then it becomes politically hard NOT to include the public option, rather than only being politically hard TO include it. Furthermore, it will guarantee the Progressives a seat at the table in the future, and probably grow the movement significantly once people see we can actually get things done. Obama supports the, 58% of Americans support the public option, and we are very close to having enough votes (yes, even in the Senate!) to get it done.
Thank you to the brave, principled Congresspeople who have taken this pledge. Please, for all our sakes, stick to it!
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
The Speech
Wow. I thought it was going pretty well, and that was before he started talking about Teddy. I'd have liked a bit stronger of a stand on the public option, and I especially could have done without him scolding the progressives who got him there, but all in all, I think he made our side seem both eminently reasonable and the bill to seem bipartisan. He made those who oppose the plan as a whole sound petty, childish and irrational, and invited reasonable debate and new ideas.
The last part of the speech, starting with some things about Teddy and moving into the moral and humane case for health care reform, and then into a discussion of the need for people to stop being petty and obnoxious, and stop trying to score political points at the expense of working for the good of the country - was awesome. Legendary, in my opinion. Moving, convincing, and great. If there are any people out there that can be convinced to come to the table, that was the speech to do it.
Meanwhile, the response was terrible. Not only was Boustany a terrible speaker, sounding totally canned, his speech made no sense next to Obama's. He repeated some things Obama just debunked or clarified, like the Medicare cuts, the budget, and the government takeover nonsense. He listed some things he says Pubs and Dems agree on (including, apparently, co-ops? I could have sworn the Pubs have said absolutely no to that). Then he claimed he was going to list some things that we disagree on, but the first thing he mentioned was medical malpractice reform, which he admitted Obama had just said we were going to do. Terrible speech. Great for us, though!
The last part of the speech, starting with some things about Teddy and moving into the moral and humane case for health care reform, and then into a discussion of the need for people to stop being petty and obnoxious, and stop trying to score political points at the expense of working for the good of the country - was awesome. Legendary, in my opinion. Moving, convincing, and great. If there are any people out there that can be convinced to come to the table, that was the speech to do it.
Meanwhile, the response was terrible. Not only was Boustany a terrible speaker, sounding totally canned, his speech made no sense next to Obama's. He repeated some things Obama just debunked or clarified, like the Medicare cuts, the budget, and the government takeover nonsense. He listed some things he says Pubs and Dems agree on (including, apparently, co-ops? I could have sworn the Pubs have said absolutely no to that). Then he claimed he was going to list some things that we disagree on, but the first thing he mentioned was medical malpractice reform, which he admitted Obama had just said we were going to do. Terrible speech. Great for us, though!
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Frothing at the Mouth
All the frothing at the mouth from the Obama-haters is beginning to make me froth at the mouth, and I'm not even that happy with him at the moment. I cannot believe that Loudoun County, among apparently many others, is really not going to broadcast a President's speech to schoolkids on the importance of education. Has it really fallen this far, that it is not just a very small, minor fringe that is willing to go to this sort of extreme? This week, the same day I heard about the Florida GOP head and his accusations of Obama's intention to indoctrinate children with his "socialist ideology," there were LaRouchies outside my metro stop on the way home from work, complete with Obama-as-Hitler posters and all their other nonsense. I wanted to get into a fight with them. And at this point, I really don't see any reason for this kind of reactionary garbage except racism, and I think the witchhunt that has lost us Van Jones is probably further evidence that is at the root of things. I'm worried for this country if the Republican "leadership" won't stand up and denounce the crazies and try to tone things down.
And for those who want to claim that Dems were like this about Bush, first of all, you're flat out wrong, and second of all, think about this: at this point in Bush's presidency, 9/11 hadn't even happened yet. The biggest complaints about him were about pulling out of Kyoto and taking too much vacation...
And for those who want to claim that Dems were like this about Bush, first of all, you're flat out wrong, and second of all, think about this: at this point in Bush's presidency, 9/11 hadn't even happened yet. The biggest complaints about him were about pulling out of Kyoto and taking too much vacation...
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Thought for the day:
With all this crazy talk about "death panels," can we turn it to our advantage? Can we promise to drop the (already nonexistent) death panels in exchange for something?
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Creigh Deeds
So it looks like McDonnell's lead just keeps growing, and according to a new poll, it looks like it's got a lot to do with a lack of interest in supporting Deeds from the Democrats.
Somehow, this doesn't really surprise me. I'm a pretty avid Dem, and I REALLY want McDonnell not to be the next governor - I think it could actually be pretty disastrous, unless we can magically get back control of the House of Delegates (not bloody likely). However, I can't get excited about Deeds. Most of what I can do to try to convince people is tell them what an extremist candidate McDonnell really is - I don't have a lot of pro-Deeds stuff to say, although I'm sure he'd be a fine candidate. And while negative campaigning works, you really need to have more positive stuff about your own candidate to go along with it...
This is the problem with McAuliffe and Moran having split up all the votes and having left us with Deeds. Deeds isn't a liberal. At all. He's probably to the right of center. He'll be a competent governor, and would actually probably be particularly effective because he's so centrist, but it does make it difficult for the partisan Democrats, i.e. the ones who usually get out and vote in non-national elections and especially the ones who donate and volunteer, to get motivated to get involved and get behind the candidate.
Well, here's hoping we can find some enthusiasm somehow, because I'm not kidding around about McDonnell. Gilmore and Allen nearly destroyed the state - and McDonnell's at least of their mold, if not worse.
Somehow, this doesn't really surprise me. I'm a pretty avid Dem, and I REALLY want McDonnell not to be the next governor - I think it could actually be pretty disastrous, unless we can magically get back control of the House of Delegates (not bloody likely). However, I can't get excited about Deeds. Most of what I can do to try to convince people is tell them what an extremist candidate McDonnell really is - I don't have a lot of pro-Deeds stuff to say, although I'm sure he'd be a fine candidate. And while negative campaigning works, you really need to have more positive stuff about your own candidate to go along with it...
This is the problem with McAuliffe and Moran having split up all the votes and having left us with Deeds. Deeds isn't a liberal. At all. He's probably to the right of center. He'll be a competent governor, and would actually probably be particularly effective because he's so centrist, but it does make it difficult for the partisan Democrats, i.e. the ones who usually get out and vote in non-national elections and especially the ones who donate and volunteer, to get motivated to get involved and get behind the candidate.
Well, here's hoping we can find some enthusiasm somehow, because I'm not kidding around about McDonnell. Gilmore and Allen nearly destroyed the state - and McDonnell's at least of their mold, if not worse.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Bar Exam = Over
Well, at least this time - here's hoping I never have to go through that again! Anyway, now I can get around to finding out about what's happened in the rest of the world the last couple of weeks - looks like we might have some sort of compromise on health care, Obama's approval ratings may or may not be plummeting and somehow McDonnell the crazy right wing extremist has taken a commanding lead over moderate-to-right wing Deeds for my fair Commonwealth's governorship. We're gonna have to get to work on these things!
Just in case anyone was wondering, McDonnell is anything but the moderate he's recently been claiming to be. He opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest and health of the pregnant woman (and repeatedly tried to find ways to limit this right in the state legislature), he backed Gilmore's tax cuts that nearly bankrupted the state, and he has opposed orders by Kaine and Warner forbidding discrimination against homosexuals as well as attempted to prevent the appointment of a judge because she was gay. I'll write more about all this soon, but it's important that people know that whatever moderate stances he may be pretending to adopt now, McDonnell is anything but. We've gotta get Deeds in office.
Just in case anyone was wondering, McDonnell is anything but the moderate he's recently been claiming to be. He opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest and health of the pregnant woman (and repeatedly tried to find ways to limit this right in the state legislature), he backed Gilmore's tax cuts that nearly bankrupted the state, and he has opposed orders by Kaine and Warner forbidding discrimination against homosexuals as well as attempted to prevent the appointment of a judge because she was gay. I'll write more about all this soon, but it's important that people know that whatever moderate stances he may be pretending to adopt now, McDonnell is anything but. We've gotta get Deeds in office.
Friday, July 10, 2009
The Neocons and Hating Everyone
While there are times (becoming ever more frequent as the bar exam approaches) when I, too, feel like I hate everyone, I don't think I've ever felt that quite as frequently as the neocons, and especially Charles Krauthammer appear to. He had a column in the Washington Post today complaining about Obama, as he is wont to do, because Obama is *gasp* trying to create better relations with Russia.
As I assume everyone knows, Russia is a nuclear power and has been doing a somewhat less-than-fantastic job of keeping up security on its nuclear weapons in the last fifteen or twenty years. It also tends to have somewhat different views from the U.S. as to the best approach to dealing with other nations, particularly Iran. It's also had a somwhat volatile political atmosphere for the last, well, forever, really, but Putin's machinations have been tending towards attempts at restoring totalitarian rule in Russia in the last decade. So, I understand why Krauthammer would be suspicious of them. However, hasn't he ever heard the saying "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer?"
Meanwhile, it isn't as though Obama's inviting them over to become our new closest allies or anything of the sort. He's merely trying to smooth diplomatic relations between our two countries, which had been deteriorating towards the end of Bush's presidency. This is much like the whole fake-controversy over Iran during the election here, when people claimed that Obama was basically going to start hanging out with Ahmadinejad and perhaps even Bin Laden, simply because he said he didn't think that freezing people out of diplomatic relations was the best way to, well, have good diplomatic relations with other countries, and that he would like to start moving towards a situation where there could be talks with Iran.
I suppose what I'm driving at here is that Obama's approaches to all of these countries are methodical, and generally aimed towards preserving and increasing diplomatic relations. Meanwhile, the neocons scream bloody murder any time Obama isn't just a complete warhawk and basically threatening to bomb everyone who ever does anything we don't like. Now, I clearly disagree with the neocons on most things, but I admit that, at least the ones publishing in major national newspapers, are generally intelligent and well-educated. I do not, however, understand how anybody who fits that description can possibly think that America is currently in a position where we can just take on all comers, and refuse to work with anybody! I'm not sure that Krauthammer and the other neocons who espouse these various positions realize that's what it looks like they're advocating for, but it really does seem to be the case. If we're worried about Russia, it seems to me that the obvious thing to do is to try to work to overcome the problem. It's not so easy to do that when you refuse to talk to the other countries.
It reminds me of something David Sedaris wrote in one of his books - and I'm paraphrasing, because I can't remember which one it's in - but he said something about how as Americans, we often go around thinking our country's the best, because we're taught all our lives that it is, but what we fail to realize is that other countries have nationalistic slogans of their own - and none of those is "We're Number Two!" Other countries don't want to be treated like disobedient children by America when we disagree with them - nor should they be. We can't just try to send them to their rooms without dinner. We have to engage with them. That is the only way we can truly make the world a safer and better place.
As I assume everyone knows, Russia is a nuclear power and has been doing a somewhat less-than-fantastic job of keeping up security on its nuclear weapons in the last fifteen or twenty years. It also tends to have somewhat different views from the U.S. as to the best approach to dealing with other nations, particularly Iran. It's also had a somwhat volatile political atmosphere for the last, well, forever, really, but Putin's machinations have been tending towards attempts at restoring totalitarian rule in Russia in the last decade. So, I understand why Krauthammer would be suspicious of them. However, hasn't he ever heard the saying "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer?"
Meanwhile, it isn't as though Obama's inviting them over to become our new closest allies or anything of the sort. He's merely trying to smooth diplomatic relations between our two countries, which had been deteriorating towards the end of Bush's presidency. This is much like the whole fake-controversy over Iran during the election here, when people claimed that Obama was basically going to start hanging out with Ahmadinejad and perhaps even Bin Laden, simply because he said he didn't think that freezing people out of diplomatic relations was the best way to, well, have good diplomatic relations with other countries, and that he would like to start moving towards a situation where there could be talks with Iran.
I suppose what I'm driving at here is that Obama's approaches to all of these countries are methodical, and generally aimed towards preserving and increasing diplomatic relations. Meanwhile, the neocons scream bloody murder any time Obama isn't just a complete warhawk and basically threatening to bomb everyone who ever does anything we don't like. Now, I clearly disagree with the neocons on most things, but I admit that, at least the ones publishing in major national newspapers, are generally intelligent and well-educated. I do not, however, understand how anybody who fits that description can possibly think that America is currently in a position where we can just take on all comers, and refuse to work with anybody! I'm not sure that Krauthammer and the other neocons who espouse these various positions realize that's what it looks like they're advocating for, but it really does seem to be the case. If we're worried about Russia, it seems to me that the obvious thing to do is to try to work to overcome the problem. It's not so easy to do that when you refuse to talk to the other countries.
It reminds me of something David Sedaris wrote in one of his books - and I'm paraphrasing, because I can't remember which one it's in - but he said something about how as Americans, we often go around thinking our country's the best, because we're taught all our lives that it is, but what we fail to realize is that other countries have nationalistic slogans of their own - and none of those is "We're Number Two!" Other countries don't want to be treated like disobedient children by America when we disagree with them - nor should they be. We can't just try to send them to their rooms without dinner. We have to engage with them. That is the only way we can truly make the world a safer and better place.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
And then there were three...
According to a post at The Mudflats, only three of the 1200 governors elected to a first term since 1900 have quit - McGreevy, Spitzer and Palin. McGreevy is the New Jersey governor who quit while coming out of the closet and admitting to an affair with the man he'd appointed his Homeland Security advisor, and of course Spitzer was having *ahem* affairs. This data makes Palin's random resignation appear all the more bizarre, but that's not what it got me thinking about.
For a century, nobody just quit as governor during his or her first term. Why is it suddenly becoming, if not commonplace, in the realm of possibility? Is it just because there's so much less privacy possible for public figures now, so everything ends up out in the open? Is it part of some greater, creeping moral turpitude that induces people not to live up to their commitments? Just seems so strange to have 3 in 5 years after having none for a century.
For a century, nobody just quit as governor during his or her first term. Why is it suddenly becoming, if not commonplace, in the realm of possibility? Is it just because there's so much less privacy possible for public figures now, so everything ends up out in the open? Is it part of some greater, creeping moral turpitude that induces people not to live up to their commitments? Just seems so strange to have 3 in 5 years after having none for a century.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Senator Franken
It's official! He's in. I think he'll be a good senator - I love his attitude. He's all about working hard, which is just what we need in our Senators. I'm quite pleased. Plus, 60 votes - except that Lieberman's basically not a vote for anything, but still, theoretically.
Meanwhile, the Pubs, are, of course, doing weirdo twisting uneducated gymnastics over on the other side of the aisle: "The Democrats have total control. No checks. No balances... In 2010, you can hold them accountable." That's from a new ad. Well, first of all, I'm pretty ok with the electorate holding the Dems accountable in 2010, because I think so far we're doing a pretty good job, I just hope the economy continues to look like it's recovering and the jobs start coming back. But, second of all - no checks, no balances? Not only is it absurd to just assume that everything is going to come down to a straight party-line vote, but aren't they forgetting someone? Paging Justice Roberts... The Founding Fathers didn't put the judiciary into the Constitution for show.
Meanwhile, the Pubs, are, of course, doing weirdo twisting uneducated gymnastics over on the other side of the aisle: "The Democrats have total control. No checks. No balances... In 2010, you can hold them accountable." That's from a new ad. Well, first of all, I'm pretty ok with the electorate holding the Dems accountable in 2010, because I think so far we're doing a pretty good job, I just hope the economy continues to look like it's recovering and the jobs start coming back. But, second of all - no checks, no balances? Not only is it absurd to just assume that everything is going to come down to a straight party-line vote, but aren't they forgetting someone? Paging Justice Roberts... The Founding Fathers didn't put the judiciary into the Constitution for show.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Michael Collins
I'm watching this movie again - it's been a while. I watched Braveheart last weekend for the first time ever, and Waltz with Bashir during the week. I guess part of me is thinking how terrible it is that people go around killing each other all the time, but another part of me is thinking how terrible it is that people find themselves in situations where they feel a need to do such things.
Michael Collins was essentially an early terrorist, but somehow this movie makes you root for him. And my Irish blood and the reality of the Republic of Ireland today makes me glad he more or less won, and I'll cry when he's shot again at the end. Freedom is a great thing - I just wish it didn't cost so many lives and so much suffering.
Michael Collins was essentially an early terrorist, but somehow this movie makes you root for him. And my Irish blood and the reality of the Republic of Ireland today makes me glad he more or less won, and I'll cry when he's shot again at the end. Freedom is a great thing - I just wish it didn't cost so many lives and so much suffering.
I love America
I know this is more like a sixth grade essay topic than anything else, but here goes. I love America. I am the proof that those crazy Republicans during the 2004 campaign were wrong - liberals not only can be patriots, but often are. No, I'm not proud of everything my country has ever done. We've done unspeakable things. But I am proud, nonetheless, of our country's general principles of liberty, freedom, and especially the rule of law. Certainly, we have not always lived up to our own standards, and we are far from perfect. Today there is rampant sexism and racism in this country, not to mention xenophobia and occasional disregard (possibly even by Obama himself) of the human dignity of all people, especially non-citizens.
However this country provides incredible opportunities, and through more than two centuries, we've avoided dictatorship, martial law and theocracies. People are free here to practice whatever religion they want, or to refuse to practice it. We live at a higher standard of living than any other country I know of, and yet are capable of great generosity of purse and spirit, much of the time. We don't always live up to the ideals we're taught, and generally imbibe, as young schoolkids, but I do believe that our ideals are great, and that for the most part we try to. Regardless of party, most of us just want what's best for the country, and most of us have shown ourselves willing to try to make those things happen.
I'm proud of us, and I'm thankful today that Obama's our President and that Democrats are in control of Congress. However, I'm also grateful to the Republicans, even those I disagree with strongly, for their efforts to steer America towards a bright future. Happy Birthday, America!
However this country provides incredible opportunities, and through more than two centuries, we've avoided dictatorship, martial law and theocracies. People are free here to practice whatever religion they want, or to refuse to practice it. We live at a higher standard of living than any other country I know of, and yet are capable of great generosity of purse and spirit, much of the time. We don't always live up to the ideals we're taught, and generally imbibe, as young schoolkids, but I do believe that our ideals are great, and that for the most part we try to. Regardless of party, most of us just want what's best for the country, and most of us have shown ourselves willing to try to make those things happen.
I'm proud of us, and I'm thankful today that Obama's our President and that Democrats are in control of Congress. However, I'm also grateful to the Republicans, even those I disagree with strongly, for their efforts to steer America towards a bright future. Happy Birthday, America!
Sarah and Mark
Does anyone else find it odd that after the craziness with the Mark Sanford saga over the last couple of weeks, it's a different governor that's stepping down? Nutso as Palin seems to be, she still had a duty to serve out her term. Nobody was calling for her resignation, she hadn't apparently stolen (much) money from her state, etc. Meanwhile, Sanford has lost every claim to honesty he ever had, is dragging his family through the shredder, and apparently made a habit of abdicating his office for days at a time whenever he felt like it - plus, a lot of people seem to want him to resign. So, he remains in office, and Palin...?
Well, who's next to implode? Pawlenty, Romney or Barbour?
Well, who's next to implode? Pawlenty, Romney or Barbour?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
